"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...

On Port Security: Slower, Please
Neither Rubber Stamps of Approval Nor Hyperventilating Objection Serve
Security
By Steve Schippert
After several days of battling both for and against the prospect of Dubai
Ports World acquiring P&O Steam Navigation and, thus, operation of several
of our largest maritime ports, I have consistently come to one daily
conclusion: Breathe.

That suggestion, by the way, is not directed solely at the many in such
spirited opposition to the deal, but also at the Bush Administration and
the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States (CFIUS). There
is absolutely no need to rush this through, especially when there is quite
obviously a great deal of concern among the American public. Neither the
ports nor P&O Steam Navigation nor their buyers, Dubai Ports World, are
going to vaporize within a 30-day or 45-day window for review. Our
nation's security (and our public's peace of mind) deserve this
consideration.

There are many aspects that warrant a closer look, including the true
nature of the UAE's support in the War on Terror, the current state of
their banking system - long used throughout the region for nefarious
causes, the fact that it will be a government-owned company servicing our
ports and not a private entity, and how they intend to staff the various
ports' management. The Committee on Foreign Investments in the United
States may very well have vetted this to their own satisfaction in their
customary secrecy. But, in this case, such secrecy will not be deemed
acceptable. There are means of publicly vetting these important issues
without compromising sensitive information. Perhaps not perfectly, but for
a matter of such great public concern, complete secrecy is
counterproductive regardless of the ultimate result of any hearings and
public review. In this instance, the risk of secrecy appears far greater
than the risk of sensitive exposure.

With that being said, the ownership of the US port operations by a UAE
government-owned firm is not the security concern that the degree of
current hyperventilating seems to insist in much of the political and
media spheres (both old and new).

Let's take a logical look at a few of the issues of concern.

a.. The UAE is not buying US ports.
There still seems to be a fair number who characterize the issue as the
United Arab Emirates 'buying' ports. They are not. Their DP World is
buying a company who happens to have rights to the leases to operate the
various ports. DP World will own nothing but rights (important rights, to
be sure) and heavy equipment. Those rights also expire with the leases
offered by the states that own the various ports.

a.. The US Coast Guard and US Customs, now under DHS command, is in
charge of inbound maritime port security, not the port operator.
It is not the function of port operators to inspect cargo or enact the
type of security measures that many seem to assume. The security checks in
question are addressed before the port operator has 'custody' of the ship
for unloading operations. Inbound cargo vessels are stopped and inspected
by the US Coast Guard at a safe distance. One can argue that they do not
inspect all/enough cargo containers, but that does not fall under the
auspices, control or even influence of the port operators. If one desires
more inspections, then the proper channel is through elected officials and
the Department of Homeland Security, but not Peninsular & Oriental Steam
Navigation today or, potentially, the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World at a
future date. Screening simply does not fall to them.

a.. The concern over potentially dubious UAE hiring practices is largely
a non sequitur.
Why? Because the hiring of the hands-on crews that operate the equipment
to dock, unload and load the commercial transport vessels is determined by
the American unions who man the yards. Anyone who has ever attempted to
become a longshoreman has had to either go through the International
Longshoreman's Association on the East Coast or the International
Longshoremen & Warehousers' Union on the West Coast, and getting into the
union is no easy task. Is an American Union going to tolerate quietly any
attempt by the UAE (or US Federal Government, for that matter) to employ a
non-union member on the docks or an attempt to squeeze a foreign citizen
onto their payrolls?

Let's also consider that these longshoremen are by and large a secondary
line of defense who are not tasked with inspection. Their job is to 'yank
and crank', to unload and load cargo as quickly as is safely possible.

If one still has concerns, right after a major shift change, stroll down
to the local watering hole near Port Long Beach or outside New Jersey's
Port Elizabeth servicing New York City. When you get inside, amidst the
lifted beers and tall tales of high school football glory days, shout out
loud, "You people cannot be trusted with this port any longer!" Be sure to
observe the response with alertness and quick feet. They take great pride
in what they do, and to suggest that they would allow anything untoward to
happen to their own dock or their own country is an exercise in folly.
These are the men who ran the docks before the March 2 purchase of P&O by
the UAE's DP World, and they will be the same ones manning the docks
afterwards.

If DP World (or P&O, for that matter) decided who loaded & unloaded the
ships, operated the cranes and moved the cargo, this would be a potential
concern. But, they do not, did not and will not.

If DP World were to even actually have in its employ at a port a
questionable character in a management position with ill intent, he would
have no more effect on an inbound shipment's ability to thwart US Customs
and Coast Guard security checks than he would from the sending end. The
idea that a port operator would somehow be more able to sneak a deadly
container into a port is an idea founded without understanding the
disconnect between the port operator and the inbound inspections system
employed by the USCG and Customs before entering the port.

a.. With few allies in the region, what does it say to those we do have
if we reject the UAE and DP World for essentially 'Operating While Arab'?
Consider the inexplicable context provided by our own former vice
president, Al Gore, who charged just days ago in a paid speech at a Saudi
Arabian-hosted Middle Eastern economic summit that America has and is
mistreating Arabs worldwide. He said that Arabs are "indiscriminately
rounded up, often on minor charges of overstaying a visa or not having a
green card in proper order, and held in conditions that were just
unforgivable. Unfortunately there have been terrible abuses and it's
wrong. I do want you to know that it does not represent the desires or
wishes or feelings of the majority of the citizens of my country."

Ironically, it should not go without notice that many of the American
politicians now loudly opposed to this deal are doing so in generalities
and pouncing upon the Arab aspect largely for public consumption, playing
to the wave of initial reaction. Yet, these politicians who opposed racial
profiling of young Arab males for particular attention in our airports
after the attacks of September 11, 2001, are now engaged in openly
racially profiling and entire nation. This incongruous stance should
disqualify them from the ranks of those who should be taken seriously.
With little doubt and much irony, they are 'playing on our fears'.

If we simply reject the UAE-owned DP World bid with this tone amid the
backdrop mindlessly and erroneously laid by our own former vice president,
it will carry loud and lasting reverberations throughout the Middle East,
a region whose slow self-transformation we rely upon heavily for the
future safety and security of our own children.

This is a long war with few clear victories. Are we prepared to now cede
one of the few allies we have in the region and accept the long-term
consequences without taking a longer, closer look?

For these key reasons, while it is important to take our time and be
certain and look for other potential risks, the key fears cited are not
necessarily based on a solid understanding of the security impact of a
port operator. With a longer and more detailed public look at both the
role of a port operator and the UAE's DP World, it will likely become
clear that this is not at all the security risk that it first seemed to
be. But, to assume otherwise or even to arrive at that judgment without
such further review is wholly irresponsible.

To be sure, there are many aspects that warrant a more patient and more
public inspection. So, let's take our time and have a closer look and have
it very publicly for our own peace of mind, one way or the other.

But be forewarned on potential Congressional review: So long as there are
cameras in the chambers, we will be more likely to see many politicians
seeking to bend testimony around their already-stated public positions
rather than seeking a true understanding, regardless of their perceptions.
Most will, typically, exit any such procedure with the same view they
entered into it with. For this reason, the public must not let this rest
on The Hill. The American public must remain engaged.

We, the people, need to review and work to understand the facts and
implications.

The items listed above are not offered as justification for waving the DP
World deal through. Not at all. Their purpose here is to simply serve as a
brown paper bag for the hyperventilating to breathe into. We need to make
an important security decision with long term implications. We cannot
possibly make a sound judgment with a rubber stamp in one hand while
hyperventilating into the other.




http://commentary.threatswatch.org/2...slower-please/



Nice one. His last 2 paragraphs say it all.

Looks like the Senate is acting responsibly, although I disagree with a
timetable for the review as Hillary suggests.

======================================
From: http://tinyurl.com/o8t2y

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...p_world _news
Senators from both parties said a state-owned Dubai company's takeover of
facilities in six major U.S. seaports should be delayed, and President
George W. Bush's top political adviser suggested the administration would
welcome having more time to persuade lawmakers.

Congress needs more time to review the deal, said John Warner of Virginia,
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrat Hillary Clinton
of New York said legislation would be offered next week to order a further
review of at least 45 days. ``That may be the first step to try and
understand this matter,'' she said.

Their comments capped a 90-minute briefing of the panel by Bush
administration officials who approved the $6.8 billion sale of London-based
port operator Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, based
in the United Arab Emirates.

DP World would gain control of most operations at ports in New York, New
Jersey, Philadelphia, Miami, Baltimore and New Orleans through the
acquisition of P&O. DP World spokesman Andrew Rice said today the company
plans to complete the purchase by March 2. Bush said after a Cabinet meeting
today that the deal doesn't pose a security risk to the U.S.

======================